My partial summary of pequaide's "energy producing experiments" thread

[Furcurequs]

I like these drawings, I don't want the thread to be to far back.

Thanks, pequaide. ...but what about my explanations as to why some of your assertions are incorrect?

What if you kept the force at a radius of one and changed the position of the inertial mass to one half radius?

Your mrr would be; 1 kg *1/2 r * ½ r = .25; it would be four times easier to move.

You have to be consistent. This is the same way you treated moving the mass to 2r; m * 2r* 2r. Which made it four time harder to move.

With it four times easier to move angular acceleration should be four times as great. And because the radius is only at one half. It would be moving twice as fast.

But what do experiments show?

The experiments seem to show that what you've said there is consistent and pretty much true.

When the masses are at r/2, the same torque will accelerate the rotating system to four times the angular velocity in the same time period.

Also, during the same accelerating time period, the angular position to which the system rotates will be four times what it was before.

The same torque applied through four times the angle gives four times the energy input into the system.

So, yes, the actual speed of the masses is only twice as fast - which accounts for the four times energy input into the system as we can see using the kinetic energy formula Ke = 1/2*m*v^2.

Dwayne

Edited to change a "through" to a "to" and to add the following link to a nice list of the relevant formulas:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#rlin

[Furcurequs]

Hello Wubbly and Tarsier79,

I certainly understand your frustration with pequaide. He is insistent and persistent and even seemingly sincere in what he says. So, what's his deal?!

Is he an attention seeking fraud?

It is, of course, the modus operandi of con men and fraudsters to pretend they are being honest with their lies while they also avoid the sharing of any information that would expose their true motives.

Is he delusional?

Well, delusional people can be very sincere when telling us things that are not true because they actually do sincerely believe them to be true.

So, what is it?! Is he a dishonest liar? Is he an honest nut? Is there something else going on?

I don't know!

I do know, though, that I can't really get inside someone else's head to decipher what's going on in there.

...and I know that I and the two of you know better than to believe the unsubstantiated claims he has apparently been spouting for quite some time now.

He's not been discussing speculative ideas and untested devices, but rather he has shared specific tests and made unsubstantiated claims about the results. We know, therefore, exactly what kind of experiments he's doing and so we know what accepted physics has to say about them and what the real world results actually are. ...and neither are as he has claimed and still claims.

So, what do we do about him?

Now, the only real problem I see is for those who are ignorant of their basic physics. He could easily lead some of them astray - and waste a lot of their time in the process. ...well, and continue to waste the time of those of us who feel we have to help set the record straight for their benefit, of course.

I'm not the sort to advocate the banning of anyone or the censoring of anyone's words, but maybe some sort of "quarantine" might actually be in order. Let others stare at him through a window and from a distance, maybe, so that he can't infect them! If his thread were in the fraud section, perhaps those who are ignorant of their basic physics might not be so quick to believe him.

You know, though, pequaide isn't the only person in this forum whose statements I've felt I needed to challenge. There was once this other fellow here who behaved in a similar manner. His forum name was jim_mich.

I had to point out a few of his errors to him, and I certainly didn't get the impression he appreciated it, either. ...lol

He was trying to teach others his own misconceptions about basic physics as if they were absolute fact while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary - again, like pequaide.

He also insisted on defending his own mistaken math even when the results of multiple other ways of solving the problem - including the results of his own computer simulation (!) - showed his answer to be wrong (and mine correct). ...again, something like with pequaide.

I was just trying to be helpful with things that I actually knew about from my engineering training. ...and yet jim_mich called my true words lies and suggested I was a fool for not taking his lead.

Now, I certainly can be mistaken at times and maybe even can be a bit of a fool at times, but I certainly wasn't the one who was mistaken at that time when he was basically calling me a lying fool.

Regardless of what he had to say about me personally, though, where I feel jim_mich crossed the line was when he impugned the honesty, integrity and the motives of other forum members who simply challenged some of his proclamations and he tried to turn others against them - and in one situation even called to have someone banned.

Thankfully, I've not seen pequaide act quite like that, at least.

Now, for the record, if anyone here knows or even just suspects that I've made a mistake with something, I want you to point it out to me. Please point it out to me. Why would I want to waste any of my own time clinging to some sort of misconception when someone could perhaps easily correct me, and I certainly don't have such a fragile ego that I'm going to cry about it or anything like that. I would instead thank you and be truly appreciative.

Oh... ...well... ...but.. ...uh... ...pequaide... ...uh.. ...please don't feel you have to correct me about mrr, though. ...lol

What do we have to do to get through to you, man?!

Anyway, eh, that's just some of my thoughts.

I'll close with this.

Maybe there will be some sort of "free energy" miracle in our future, but if so it will certainly involve a better understanding of the truth - not a rejection of parts of the truth we already understand.

Take care.

Dwayne

[Tarsier79]

Hi Dwayne.

My frustration is my problem. It doesn't help when he makes accusations about falsifying data. I understand why Peq. is holding on to his theory. He, like so many of us, have spent years researching, putting time and effort into this and there comes a point you hope it is not for nothing, and you have to take something away. A number of people, including myself have looked into momentum transfer. Some of us have moved on. It is good people like Peq asks the questions. I hope he eventually comes to the right conclusion.

There are comparisons with Jim, in that he has had his belief in CF for a long time. Jim has given a lot of his time helping others, and I have great respect for him, but others are rubbed up the wrong way by him for some reason. We can't be right all the time. The big difference is: I have not seen a conclusive mechanical proof that CF is energy conservative. I have a plan for one, but it remains on my ever growing to-do list. If only I had my own builder like Grimer.... Smart thinking.

Here's to correct interpretation of results...

Kaine

[Ed]

His forum name was jim_mich.

I find your comment offensive!



:-)

[Wubbly]

Dwayne, Who knows what goes through another person's head. Whatever his deal, it doesn't seem rational. Some people's brains are just wired differently. Bisexual reproduction creates unique organisms. Some more unique than others.

[cloud camper]

I have not seen a conclusive mechanical proof that CF is energy conservative. I have a plan for one, but it remains on my ever growing to-do list. Kaine

It is impossible to do a proof that CF is conservative as it is a fictitious force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

It only appears to exist because a rotating environment is inside an accelerated reference frame. From an external observers viewpoint viewing from a non-accelerated frame, there is no CF, only a property of mass resisting change in direction.

For the external observer the magnitude of the CF "force" is always zero no matter what the mass or rpm.

Therefore CF=0=0=0=0.

See how easy that was! Absolutely conservative since there is nothing here to conserve.

Too bad in ten years Jim never bothered to learn this in spite of being a claimed CF expert.

You may now cross this off your to-do list.

[Tarsier79]

No problems Cloud. I will cross my "CF" experiments off, and perform "property of mass resisting change in direction" experiments. Thats odd, both experiments look exactly the same, and will give me the same results!

[cloud camper]

Whatever floats your boat T.

But I hope you are planning on a lonely and tedious voyage into the fruitless realm of trying to create energy from CF (kind of like Jim's!)

The bottom line on CF experiments is that you're hoping for a gain in energy from a mass that changes direction.

This of course is ludicrous as changing a mass' direction or velocity always requires energy, except in the special case of a balanced wheel where all forces counterbalance.

So in this case the best you can do is break even, not counting friction of
course.

Good luck and bon voyage!

Oh yeah, maybe if you sweet talk Jim, he can make you a screamin' deal on his "Proven Runner" CF simulation program!

[Ed]

Jim hasn't made a peep in a month. Seems he might've thrown himself out with the beardwater.

[Mark]

Maybe he finally got to step "E".

[daxwc]

LOL, I never even noticed that, but then again I never got passed step one to be bothered to look.

[murilo]

Maybe he finally got to step "E".

Your real smark, Mart! B))

[Furcurequs]

Hi Dwayne.

My frustration is my problem. It doesn't help when he makes accusations about falsifying data. I understand why Peq. is holding on to his theory. He, like so many of us, have spent years researching, putting time and effort into this and there comes a point you hope it is not for nothing, and you have to take something away. A number of people, including myself have looked into momentum transfer. Some of us have moved on. It is good people like Peq asks the questions. I hope he eventually comes to the right conclusion.

There are comparisons with Jim, in that he has had his belief in CF for a long time. Jim has given a lot of his time helping others, and I have great respect for him, but others are rubbed up the wrong way by him for some reason. We can't be right all the time. The big difference is: I have not seen a conclusive mechanical proof that CF is energy conservative. I have a plan for one, but it remains on my ever growing to-do list. If only I had my own builder like Grimer.... Smart thinking.

Here's to correct interpretation of results...

Kaine

Hey Kaine,

First of all, let me apologize for taking so long to get back to you. With my chronic pain problems it's often difficult for me to collect and express my thoughts, and so I pretty much have to just wait until I'm a bit better able to do that.

Anyway, I guess we do have to truly own our own frustrations, but when we have entered the fray so as to truly investigate certain claims and/or to truly offer some assistance where we can and then our own input is met with the questioning of our honesty or integrity - like with pequaide accusing you of falsifying data - I would say our frustrations are actually justified.

I do believe you pegged it, though. It's not always emotionally easy to admit to a mistaken notion after one has invested lots of time to it and maybe wasted lots of time with it, but of course to cling to a mistaken notion based upon our "feelings" isn't rational, either. I too hope pequaide gets to the correct answer eventually and agree that there is nothing wrong with him asking questions. That's a good thing - even in questioning long held beliefs. ...but, of course, questioning doesn't do us much good if we don't accept the real answers.

Now, and again in regards to jim_mich, as I've said before, he can be very kind and polite and helpful. He can write up knowledgeable, informative, interesting and thought provoking posts that are a joy to read, even. I, like others, truly appreciate his contributions.

...but...

Have you tried to point out a mistake of his to him? I have, and when I've done that, I've encountered what seemed to be an entirely different person.

When jim_mich was calling my true words lies, suggesting I was a fool, pretending like I was unfairly picking on him and acting like I was persecuting him - even as he was also trying to stir up other people's emotions against me - well, yeah... ...that did sort of rub me up the wrong way. ...lol

If he had truly known what he was doing and talking about, he could have easily dispensed with all the emotionally charged theatrics and just calmly and coolly shown that his math was correct. He could have ended whatever the controversy with but a single post - rather than going on to play like he was some sort of innocent victim of a cruel attack.

...or, of course, he could have even just calmly and coolly looked over his math until we found his mistake, anyway, (which was actually closer to what he was doing there at the end before he went all static-y) if he perhaps hadn't been so emotionally invested in what he apparently wanted to believe.

Like you've suggested, when we spend a great deal of time, effort and thought and maybe even money on our speculative ideas, it can of course be very disappointing to find out that we are wrong, but we do have to be careful of becoming so emotionally invested in our own notions that we won't accept or even consider evidence that we are mistaken or, maybe even worse, we start treating those who won't "just believe" us (when, of course, we are the ones who would then be making the extraordinary claims) with disrespect. I do believe that that is a step toward true delusion.

I actually like jim_mich. I hope he returns. ...but I hope he returns with his head on straight and perhaps knowing better than to treat others like that anymore... ...or at the very least knowing not to treat me like that again. ...lol

If others will let jim_mich walk all over them even when he is in the wrong, that's their choice, I guess. ...but I choose not to act like some sort of ignorant pansy. Also, I believe jim_mich had enablers in this forum that let him get away with that sort of behavior for far too long - even as he drove other helpful, knowledgeable and contributing members of this forum away. My thoughts here, of course, should probably not be any news to you or jim_mich - for I'm not really saying anything now that I haven't already said to him directly.

Again, though, we all have to be careful, for it won't be people like that fellow over at peswiki.com that we will have to convince if we are truly onto something but rather people who could "ream us a new one" (as the kids say) if we don't actually know what we are talking about and we aren't able to cross our t's and dot our i's.

jim_mich should probably just consider what he has experienced recently as training for what's to come if he by some chance actually could be onto something with any of his ideas and could one day truly move forward. That's at least the way I would try to think of it.

Anyway, I'll now try to not dwell on that situation any longer.

I would, though, like to address "fictitious forces" in general and then concentrate on "centrifugal force" specifically and whether there is any "free" energy to be had in trying to put it to work.

I'll do that in a separate post, however.

(If it takes me awhile to get it posted, I'll just go ahead and say, though, that there doesn't appear to be any "free" energy there.)

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

His forum name was jim_mich.

I find your comment offensive!



:-)

Sorry, man! ;)

Look, I don't mean to bash the guy, but after the ordeal I went through trying to deal with him, I guess I needed to say something in regards to that experience - if even in just trying to understand for myself what was going on there so that I could have some sort of closure.

Believe it or not, I really do hope he returns - changed man or not.

Heck, I'd even go another round if he wants. It keeps me on my toes. ;)

Take care.

Dwayne

[Furcurequs]

Dwayne, Who knows what goes through another person's head. Whatever his deal, it doesn't seem rational. Some people's brains are just wired differently. Bisexual reproduction creates unique organisms. Some more unique than others.

Hey Wubbly,

After having spent several years working with young men with autism, I'm certainly aware that some people are wired differently. Those guys were certainly each unique, but in working with them I also saw, though, that in many ways they were just like the rest of us.

Unfortunately, though, many of them couldn't verbally communicate, so I often did have to wonder what was going on inside their heads when they didn't seem to be paying much attention to what was going on around them.

Many had behaviors that they would "perseverate" on that to someone "normal" would certainly seem rather unusual - like tapping on a dangling string, or rolling and unrolling or otherwise manipulating a sock. After awhile, though, I began questioning how that was much different from some hobby or sport that a "normal" person might be into.

Anyway, I don't think I worked with any real "savants" who could have taught me physics, however, much less physics that's beyond the mainstream. Well... ...if they understood advanced physics, they weren't talking.

Heck, I may be wired differently myself. I know my family doesn't understand me.

Back to pequaide, maybe he sincerely just doesn't get it. I will say, though, that he can ask interesting questions - even if he perhaps doesn't get to the right answers.

So, I wouldn't just ignore him, but neither would I be too quick to accept any of his free energy claims.

I've said what I can about some of his specific ideas. I'll just leave it there, I guess.

Take care.

Dwayne